Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
So what is "science"?

Social cohesion, I quite agree. I'm not against the discussion here, I joined in. Because I suppose it's good for a laugh, though it's 100% piffle.

For those who take it seriously, I think there are a lot of places on Internet. Once again, what is its value as a serious or regular topic for ET?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Aug 21st, 2007 at 05:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you're being very paternalistic in deciding for everyone what is good enough for ET.

If anyone had called the subprime credit debacle "piffle", they would have been troll rated.

Let's stay civil please.

by zoe on Tue Aug 21st, 2007 at 05:42:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think astrology is piffle. If someone wanted to say: the subprime crisis is piffle, I cannot imagine why they would be troll-rated.

I haven't lacked civility towards you (or any other user), mmmm. You, however, say I'm "paternalistic" and that I "decide for everyone what is good for ET". Which is not civil, and is false. I'm not deciding for everyone. Neither, by the way, do you speak for everyone.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Aug 21st, 2007 at 05:53:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because I suppose it's good for a laugh, though it's 100% piffle.

I don't know if I'm misreading how you meant this, but from the way that's written, it looks like you joined in to ridicule it.

Look, afew, I will never, ever tell you to believe in astrology, nor will I tell you to stop personally thinking of it as piffle. But the open threads, and even some diaries, have extolled the virtues of such topics as alcohol, drugs, ayurveda, kittens, road trips, Leicester, cars, gardens, and Harry Potter, and I can guarantee you that anyone reading that sentence recoiled internally and thought, "But there's nothing wrong with that topic!"

That's my point; as annoying as astrology is to you, it's not annoying to others, and a topic that you like to discuss might annoy others (I rejoice in kittens, but there's probably at least one ETer who can't stand the sight of them). So please realize that it's somewhat unrealistic to try to prevent most topics from being discussed, especially by deciding if they fall in the realm of science. I'm trying to be careful how I phrase that because I know you're pretty much just expressing an opinion, but others are going to have their opinions too.

I don't know if I'm being clear or just confusing the situation more, but mmmm has a good point with the drug diaries and threads. Not everyone here is thrilled with those, I'm certainly not. But I've stayed out of them for the most part (I had like one or two posts regarding lung problems) because I know if I tried to stop them there'd be hell to pay. No one would stand for my ridiculing drug use or telling people to stop talking about it. So I'm amazed that astrology elicits the response it does (you've been relatively calm, but I've gotten a couple of rather nasty replies in earlier diaries).

by lychee on Tue Aug 21st, 2007 at 06:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Astrology doesn't annoy me, lychee, and I didn't join in to ridicule it. When I say I think it's piffle (paraphrasing Sven's "poppycock"), I mean I don't believe in it. And it is a belief system (for some).

If I'd thought we shouldn't be talking about it in an open thread, I'd have said so much sooner. Of course there are heaps of topics that are discussed in OTs, and I can't think of an occasion when I have spoken against any of them.

But this spat today began when I discussed with Sven his response to Jerome. I think ET has other priorities than discussing astrology. That's an overall view, not a criticism of this particular open thread.

BTW, I think you can perfectly well argue that drug use shouldn't be discussed here (in a manner that "extols its virtues", as you say). You might find yourself supported in surprising quarters.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Aug 21st, 2007 at 06:40:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In my definition, is the examination of phenomena and the construction of theories about these phenomena that show internal and external relevance or correction to existing knowledge, and that can be universally verified.

Science is always in flux. It is often wrong. It is always being improved. It is the work of scientists to improve our understanding.

Poetry is not science.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Aug 21st, 2007 at 09:53:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series